A retired JAG officer with over 23 years of experience, says the military judge who ruled against discovery for a Greeley Army officer may have derailed the government’s case based on precedent from another high profile case involving a military officer.
Lt. Col John Eidsmoe, a retired Air Force officer who works for former Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore at the Foundation for Moral Law, said Lakin is “raising legitimate constitutional questions” regarding President Obama’s eligibility to be commander-in-chief.
Eidsmoe said the issue has been around for several years and was first raised by Phillip Berg, a liberal Democrat who was a Hillary Clinton supporter.
“If he is a legitimate citizen of the United States, he could easily clear that up just by releasing the information to prove it,” Eidsmoe said “When the national interest is at stake, he has a duty to put personal feelings aside and show us he’s legitimate, if he is.”
Last week at a hearing on the motion for documents relating to the President’s eligibility under the Constitution, the judge ruled Lakin did not have any rights to discovery. Jenson said in the morning the judge listened very intently and she “found our arguments very appealing.” After lunch she issued a motion ruling against Lakin on all counts. In a meeting with the press afterwards, Jenson said he “was astonished that she would leave them with no defense whatsoever.” He went on to say that they were going to be given “no discovery at all” and they would be barred from “introducing any witnesses on the legality of the order.”
Jensen said that they will immediately appeal the ruling to the Army Court of Criminal appeals as this ruling completely prevents them from providing a defense.
In issuing the decision, Lind said Lakin would not be permitted to call witnesses because it has the “potential for embarrassment” of the President. Margaret Hemenway, spokeswoman for Col. Lakin, said the judge appeared to imply Lakin could be a racist by asking if this would be happening if Bush were the commander-in-chief.
In the decision the government stated that even if Obama is not eligible it would not matter and all actions taken by the president would still be valid. They also state that Lakin is “duty bound to follow the lawful orders of his superiors even if the eligibility of the President under the constitution is later found deficient.” The issue of the president’s birthplace is outweighed by “the danger of confusing the issues” according to prosecutors.
Eidsmoe said these statements could possibly cause problems for the government’s case based on precedent set in another recent high profile case involving Lt. Col. Michael Murphy.
Murphy was a high ranking official who served as general counsel to the White House Military office under President George W. Bush. In 2006 the Air Force discovered he had been disbarred for over 20 years in Texas and Louisiana, however, Murphy had told the Air Force he was never subject to any disciplinary issues. The military charged him with nine counts of conduct unbecoming an officer and one count of failure to obey a general regulation. At the arraignment his lawyers requested records from his time with the WHMO arguing the records were needed in order to provide a defense. The WHMO refused to release the documents requested and the judge agreed, ruling that the information was not harming the lawyer’s ability to mount a defense to the charges which did not directly relate to his time at WHMO.
The Air Force Times reported that, “The information would not relate to the facts of the case but could have been useful in presenting what is known as the “good airman” defense, a doctrine in military law that allows the defense to present information about the defendant’s character and job performance.” The judge also ruled that a lack of access to the records would affect the defense’s ability to demonstrate Murphy’s good conduct and performance during the sentencing phase of the trial, calling the ability to present mitigating evidence about conduct “a substantial right of a military accused.” The judge also ruled that even if found Murphy he could not be punished and the Air Force of Criminal Courts agreed.
Eidsmoe said the circumstances in the Murphy case are very similar to Lakin’s case with the refusal to allow documents and witnesses related to the President’s eligibility.
Two days prior to the ruling, a former three-star Air Force general I who was a command pilot with 407 combat missions, filed an affidavit supporting of Lt. Col. Terry Lakin. Retired Lt. General Thomas McInerney said in an affidavit filed prior to Lakin’s September 2nd court hearing that officers are and must be “trained that they owe their highest allegiance to the United States Constitution.” He goes on to state as part of a training officers received is that they “must disobey an illegal order.”
On the eligibility issue, McInerney said “if he is ineligible under the Constitution to serve in that office. That creates a break in the chain of command of such magnitude that its significance can scarcely be imagined.” He went on to note part of his duties including commanding forces equipped with nuclear weapons and it was important “that the personnel with access to these weapons have unwavering in absolute confidence in the unified chain of command, because such confidence was absolutely essential in the event the use of those weapons were authorized.”
Gen. McInerney was the former assistant vice Chief of Staff, headquarters U.S. Air Force Washington, DC. Additionally he has logged over 4100 flying hours, including 407 combat missions as a command pilot.
Commenting on Lakin’s refusal to obey orders, the general praised him saying, “In refusing to obey orders because of his doubts as to the legality, LTC Lakin has acted exactly as proper training dictates.”
Praising Lakin for following his conscience, McInerney said it was vital for the judge to grant Lakin’s request for discovery pertaining to the President’s birth records as “absolutely essential to determining not merely his guilt or innocence, but to reassuring all military personnel once and for all for this president whether his service as commander-in-chief is constitutionally proper” noting that the President “is the single person in the chain of command that the Constitution demands proof of natural born citizenship.” He also said that “allowing access to these records is critical to our Republic.”
Supporters of the President have said there is no need for Obama to release any of the records requested because the online copy of the certification of live birth released during the campaign is sufficient proof. They also claim that the President is under no obligation to release them citing privacy laws. McInerney disputes that saying, “The invasion of his privacy in these records is utterly trivial compared to the issues at stake here.
McInerney is the third former general to come out in support of Lt. Col. Lakin, and the highest ranking member of the military thus far.
Other discrepancies in the President’s childhood history have also helped fuel the controversy. Obama’s half-sister, Maya Soetoro, claimed in an interview with the Rainbow Newsletter in 2004 that he was born at Queens Medical Center in Honolulu on August 4, 1961. In an interview with the Honolulu Star Bulletin in February 2008, she stated that he was born at the Kapiolani Medical Center for Women and Children.
Additionally, there are numerous foreign news sources disputing his Hawaiian birth. The Kenyan Observer in 2008 made reference to “the Kenyan born senator.” African Travel Magazine declared “as Kenyan born, US Senator Barrack Obama gets into Kenya today…”

Historian: The Constitution divides CITIZENS from NATURAL BORN CITIZENS by the legal term “OR”, thus they are NOT the same concept in the eyes of the Constitution, which sees CITIZENS as statutory, and NATURAL BORN CITIZENS as by nature.

Therefore when the Constitution says no Citizens can be president, it is precise. Citizens CAN be in Congress. The difference because of allowance of position is another marker of the obvious distinction between terms.

So, NBCs are not Citizens because per the Constitution Citizens are STATUTORY (hey dolt, that’s why there’s something called “statutes” defining them !!) and are not NBCs because Congressional members can be just Citizens, but the President must be a Natural Born Citizen.

NBCs have the SAME RIGHTS as Citizens (WKA) but A2 clarifies they are NOT the same thing and have different privileges. POTUS is a privilege, not a right (because of the discriminatory requirements otherwise imposed).

gorefan wrote:
“Wow. At the time the Constitution was written there were only two types of citizens; natural born and naturalized. So, House of Representatives = natural born + naturalized Senate = natural born + naturalized
President = natural born It really is that simple.”

NOPE, those persons grandfathered in A2S1C5 were CITIZENS because CITIZENS includes naturalized and citizens at birth just as the 14th says.

YOU BOTS ARE SO DESPERATE TO CONTRIVE ARTIFICIAL TERMS BUT EVEN IF YOU DO YOUR LOGIC FALLS ON ITS FACE!
That’s what’s so pathetic about you! You look at 14th/1401 and it’s right there in front of your noses, yet you insist on this STUPID naturalized/NB division to lump NBC’s in with CABs when it CANNOT be possible because most CABs are not even born in-country (5 out of 8 sub-statutes).

Give it up, all the money Soros pours into your pathetic attempt to destroy America will never change pure logic or rewrite all the history books!

Arthur wrote:
Gee, terminu, you make it all sound so simple and obvious.
So tell me, how come no one even mentioned it until after the election?
————
Thank you, I think the matter is cut and dry. Bot ‘naturalized vs. natural born’ (notice how they don’t use the whole appropriate term “natural born citizen”) bogus categories don’t work even if you grant them because the majority of citizens-at-birth are not even born in the USA, AND it doesn’t jibe whatsoever with the logic of USC1401/14th. I think some Soros-funded dumbot thought he was brainiac of the century trying to conflate terms, crooks and liars all they will eat it when 320 million people stand up to this fraud!

As to what happened re:Berg–he was on to the birth certificate before the election, and I think Taitz was focusing on that and other frauds such as the 6 social security numbers he’s used… I have to do more looking into who did what when but we knew by his admission of a UKC father that he was not NBC, and Obama lied at his unauguration stating BHOSr was an immigrant which he never was.

THE MOST TELLING DATA IS THE FACT THAT TEAM OBAMA TRIED TO CHANGE THE LAWS/DEFINITIONS OF NBC BEFORE THE ELECTION.
I’ve spoken to the reps of high ranking dems and they know he’s a fraud but they justify it by saying this:

“He won”

Well he didn’t win because he was never eligible to win. Just based on the 20th amendment, and no lawsuit is needed since the laws are already on the books…he was never certified because his Hawaii admits his COLB was amended which would mean it needed to be presented for court-vetting but never was, and it’s an obvious forgery too, so he could not have been certified, and in fact never was, so by law is just a big fat usurper.

What you haven’t made clear is why no one brought it up before the election. There are plenty of people in this country who are knowledgeable about the Constitution, and not all of them are Obama fans. If you are right, it would have been a simple matter for any of his political opponents to have him declared ineligible.

Historian: The Constitution divides CITIZENS from NATURAL BORN CITIZENS by the legal term “OR”, thus they are NOT the same concept in the eyes of the Constitution, which sees CITIZENS as statutory, and NATURAL BORN CITIZENS as by nature.

No. It does not.

It divides “natural born Citizen” from “Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution.”

The grandfather clause becomes essentially meaningless unless you include the entire provision. And once you do that, your argument is exposed as a deliberate lie.

Therefore when the Constitution says no Citizens can be president, it is precise. Citizens CAN be in Congress. The difference because of allowance of position is another marker of the obvious distinction between terms.

There you go again… limiting the Presidency to foreigners again. It is a very good thing that the Constitution does not say what you claim it does. Else we’d be ruled by natural born Slovenians.

per my analogy I must emphasize per WKA that beef ribs have no fewer rights than top sirloin, but they do enjoy different privileges…the only persons who can be potus are nbc/top sirloins, but otherwise share equal RIGHTS as statutory citizens

Here I am laboriously explaining to the obots all of the constitutional eligibility issues, when Hawaii done-went-and-simplified matters.
As Tim Adams, Chief Elections Clerk of Honolulu said, Obama never had any documentation to prove Hawaii was his birthplace.
The blockbuster news today is that Hawaii Democratic Committee REFUSED TO CERTIFY Obama.
They all know he was not born there.
THEREFORE by the 20th Amendment, he is not president what-so-ever anyway.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rXFwqUi3zR0
Why should Americans be obliged to this poseur?
Because of “acclamation” as Hawaii and dumbO said? “I won”?
No.

Adams boss has said he was a low level clerk with no access to any information. He goes on to add that the President’s eligibility was never an issue.

“I checked with Glen Takahashi, the administrator of the Honolulu City Clerk’s office, and while he verified that Adams worked there, he explained – gently making it clear he did not want to “call anyone a liar” — that Adams never actually had access to information about Barack Obama.

“Our office does not have access to birth records,” Takahashi said. “That’s handled by the state of Hawaii Department of Health. Where he’s getting that, I don’t know. Put it this way: Barack Obama was not trying to register to vote in Hawaii. He is, as far as I know, not a registered voter here. So no one was looking that up.”

Takahashi explained that the “senior elections clerk” job that Adams held was a low-level data entry position dealing with voter registration and absentee ballots — Adams was one of dozens of temporary employees who staffed the pre-election rush. And he contradicted Adams’s claims that Obama’s lack of a birth certificate was an “open secret” or that voters contacted the office to ask about it.

Historian Dude: Just like Chester Arthur, who at least wasn’t bent on destroying America (though he did make American troops salute the British flag…) Obama is already a known usurper, history will not forget what 65% of Americans already know. This coup was predicated on stealth, and so it will fail.

Arthur B: I am researching the cases on the timeline, the ones filed before the election (which Kagan handily dispatched and was quidproquo paid for handsomely) but I do know when the electoral votes were counted that Cheney did not call for objections as required and when a Congressman stood to speak Pelosi started clapping and stood up and the man was in essence shouted down.

Birther Genius: “what is a natural born citizen?
Obot Fraudster: “anyone who is a citizen at birth, like a british subject is called a natural born subject, and a subject is like a citizen, so anyone born in the USA, including anchor babies”
Birther Genius: “But most citizens at birth are not born in the USA, and the Civil Rights Act of 1866 means anchor babies are not US Citizens at all”
Obot Fraudster: “doiyh, uhhh, errr, ummm…you’re getting desperate in birtherstan eh?”

Birther Genius: “What is a natural born citizen?”
Obot Fraudster: “well, a natural born citizen is just a citizen”
Birther Genius: “Why can citizens be in Congress but are not eligible as president? What is a “Citizen” then?”
Obot Fraudster: “Well, NBCs are Citizens and Citizens are Citizens so any Citizen can be president. And, well, a citizen is anybody in the 14th amendment”
Birther Genius: “Natural Born Citizens are not mentioned in the 14th amendment.”
Obot Fraudster: “Doesn’t mean it’s not there.”
Birther Genius: “sigh”

BIrther Genius: “Hawaii refuses to verify the COLB document per HRS 338-18 and the Hawaii Democratic Committee refused to certify Obama’s eligibility for president OTHER THAN by “acclamation” which is not copesthetic per the Constitution. This means Obama has failed the 20th Amendment requirement for certification. No other states certified Obama as well.”
Obot Fraudster: ” ”

Birther Genius: “You do know that 65% of Americans know Obama is not eligible and the number is growing. You do know that history has already documented the usurpation.”
Obot Fraudster: “nyah-uh!”

Obot Fraudster: “But James Madison said that in the United States, place of birth determines allegiance.”

Birther Genius: “I don’t give a sh*t what the Madison said. It doesn’t fit what I believe.”

Obot Fraudster: “Native born = Natural born and “Native Born” means born in the country without regard to parents citizenship, at least according to the founding fathers.”

Birther Genius: “Stop bring up, the Founders, I don’t give a rats a*s what they think.” I only care what I think.”

Obot Fraudster: ” But every legal scholar from the founding of the country until today, says that the Founders patterned the Constitution after English Law with which they were very familiar.”

Birther Genius: “They are all wrong. Only I am right. And I say they based a some Swiss foreigner.”

Birther Genius: Look, you don’t get it. I will do whatever I have to do to overturn the will of the people. I will make stuff up, only provide half-quotes, fabricate facts, change history. I will even destroy the Constitution, if it gets in my way.”

Obot Fraudster: “But thats anti-American.”

Birther Genius: “Now you are beginning to understand. ”

Terminu

Still waiting for that quote from the founders saying they used Vattel to change the definition of “natural born”. Any chance we’re going to see that from you soon.

terminu shouted: “THE MOST TELLING DATA IS THE FACT THAT TEAM OBAMA TRIED TO CHANGE THE LAWS/DEFINITIONS OF NBC BEFORE THE ELECTION.”

Particularly Impressive is that he got his “LAWS/DEFINITIONS” into legal dictionaries written before he was born. See, for example, /Judicial and statutory definitions of words/ by West Publishing Co. 1904, page 4664. You can read it for free at books.google.com.http://books.google.com/books?id=cJENAAAAYAAJ

Arthur B:
The Constitutional question was brought up well before the election by the original birthers–THE DEMOCRATS!
The Dems sued McCain and Profesor Turley challenged McCain in essays. McCain did present his birth certificate, and then Senate Resolution 511 was passed to deem him a Natural Born Citizen because he had 2 US Citizen parents, and as Vattel says that a child is a Natural Born Citizen if that child is born of citizen parents abroad while they are “in service of country” and because McCain’s father, an Admiral in the US Navy was on active duty when he was born. Then for reasons unknown, the matter was quieted up after that point. Obama cosponsored SR511 so he full well knows that 2 US citizen parents are required for a child to be a natural born citizen.
Berg told the DNC before they even nominated Obama that if they did not address theissue there would be a lawsuit filed. The Dems ignored it all, hoping the ineligibility issue would go away, but it’s only grown.
The Vattel issue was brought forth in 2008 as well, but the press has censored it.
more later…

Terminu won’t look it up. He’s only interested in stuff that confirms what he already believes.. Anything that proves the President’s eligiblity is promptly ignored. As birthers go he is particularly dishonest. Look at some of his earlier posts about Minor, and Wong. Quotes are deliberately cut off to change their meanings.

The Dems sued McCain and Profesor Turley challenged McCain in essays. McCain did present his birth certificate, and then Senate Resolution 511 was passed to deem him a Natural Born Citizen because he had 2 US Citizen parents, and as Vattel says that a child is a Natural Born Citizen if that child is born of citizen parents abroad while they are “in service of country” and because McCain’s father, an Admiral in the US Navy was on active duty when he was born. Then for reasons unknown, the matter was quieted up after that point. Obama cosponsored SR511 so he full well knows that 2 US citizen parents are required for a child to be a natural born citizen.

1. McCain has never presented his birth certificate.

2. Vattel never mentioned natural born citizen once in anything he ever wrote.

3. SR511 only deals with a birth overseas. Obama was born in Hawaii.

Berg told the DNC before they even nominated Obama that if they did not address theissue there would be a lawsuit filed. The Dems ignored it all, hoping the ineligibility issue would go away, but it’s only grown.

Berg did not bring up the Vattel definition. He did not believe it and said so.

The Vattel issue was brought forth in 2008 as well, but the press has censored it.
more later…

OK Obot Fraudsters, why don’t you provide a specific quote from the founders that they used English Common Law and that being a born Citizen was sufficient to be President? EH? And show specifically where Madison defined who is a “natural born Citizen of the United States as being other than a person born in the country to two citizen parents?

As to the founders and framers and those of that were of that era, Chief Justice John Marshall in the 1814 Venus case specifically said that Vattel’s writings were the best when it comes to Citizenship issues. Read that case for more details on that.

The journals of the Articles of Confederation mention the term “natural born Citizen” as the translation of “naturel citoyens” in correspondence with the French diplomats in the time period between 1776 and 1787.

And David Ramsay a founder and historian of that time clearly told is what it meant. The writings of David Ramsay clearly defined what was intend by the term “natural born Citizen” in the U.S. Constitution. You can find a link to his paper here. http://www.scribd.com/my_document_collections/2465213

The term was clearly defined after the Constitution was written by a 1797 edition of Vattel translated to English which conformed to the translation in the journal of the Articles of Confederation translation of naturel Citoyens before 1787.

Chief Justice Marshall said Vattel was the clearest writer on Citizenship. So it cannot be clearer in history what it meant and where they got it.

Do you Obots support a SCOTUS definition of NBC once and for all? If you think you’re so right, then why not BUZZ OFF and let cases be adjudicated on the merits and not keep supporting bogus “standing” qualitative judgments and technicalities that obstruct?

Again, the DEMOCRATS challenged McCain before the election accusing him of not being a natural born citizen because he was born in Panama, but again his father was on active duty and both his parents were US Citizens (so still a NBC). What happened after the Dems pressuring McCain was an apparent quid pro quo–they passed SR511 cosponsored by Obama deeming McCain a NBC as long as McCain shut up about Obama’s UKC father and Obama not being NBC, and now as it turns out not being a US citizen at all (Hawaii Dem Com. would have certified him if he was born in Hawaii, but they refused because he was not).

Most Obots are not even US citizens, they are interfering foreigners. This is an American national national security issue to provide a “strong check” against foreign influence via birth on the person who would be President and Commander of the military. They wanted a clear cut 2nd generation U.S. Citizen American, well marinated in our culture. They did not want the son of a foreign national in charge of our military. It is very clear to a rational person. But the Obots do not argue rationally, because actually they are likely Putincrat enemies of the state or Soros operatives. They are into obfuscation and disinformation.

It is in the hands of the People as to what happens next with the election in November and/or potentially to paraphrase John F. Kennedy … “those who make peaceful [resolution] impossible, make violent [resolution] inevitable”. If Obama tries to take over with Marshal Law it could tip the country into a new Civil War. We await the October surprise, and hope someone gets a grip on things. The Supreme Court must do its duty and uphold their oath to the Constitution.

US 1st Congresshttp://theobamafile.com/_images/1stUSCongress.png
Document TWO: the actual text of the FIRST CONGRESS in 1790 states,
“…children of citizens (NB: plural, i.e. two parents) of the United States…shall be considered as natural born citizens of the United States; Provided That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons, whose fathers have never been resident in the United States…”

” I think Obama’s a citizen of the United States, a natural born citizen of the United States. I don’t feel why I should undercut a birth certificate in Hawaii–I don’t know what else you need.”

“There’s some people who say that both parents need to be citizens. That’s never been the law…What they [the founders] were thinking about at the time was they were just concerned about foreigners coming in. But that’s not what we’ve got here.”

“And David Ramsay a founder and historian of that time clearly told is what it meant. The writings of David Ramsay clearly defined what was intend by the term “natural born Citizen” in the U.S. Constitution. You can find a link to his paper here.”

You really should do your home work and not just cut and paste from birther websites.

Doctor David Ramsay ran for a South Carolina seat in the US Congress in the first election held after the Constittution was ratified. He lost. In fact, he came in third. The winner was William L. Smith. Ramsay contested the election and petitioned Congress to declare Smith ineligible. He even wrote a letter to James Madison asking Madison to support his petition. He also wrote the dissertation that you reference.

He claimed that Smith was ineligible because he had not been a citizen for 7 years as required by the Constitution. The facts were never disputed. William L. Smith was born in South Carolina in 1758. His mother (a british suibject) died in 1760. His father (a british subject) sent him to London in 1770, five months later the father died. William stayed in London until 1774, when he went to Geneva, Switzerland for school. He returned to London in 1779. Where he studied law. He returned to the United States in 1783. He was elected to the South Carolina legislature. And in 1788, he was elected to the US Congress.

Ramsay’s petition to Congress and his dissertation contain many of the same examples and ideas on citizenship. and how it is aquired.

Here is where it gets good.

In the trial in the House of Representatives , James Madison makes a speech in which he says,

“It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will therefore be unnecessary to investigate any other. Mr. Smith founds his claim upon his birthright; his ancestors were among the first settlers of that colony.”

Ramsay’s petition was rejected by a vote of 36 to 1. Along with Jmaes Madison, four other signers (Clymer, Carroll, Fitzsimons and Gilman) of the Constitution, voted to reject Ramsay’s petition.

Another birther genius failure. (Definition of birther genius: smartest rock in a box of rocks).

As to the term “natural born”, it had a definition going back hundreds of years. You say the foiunders changed the definition, but never got around to telling anyone. Are you saying the founders were incompetent?

The founders were aware of Vattel since he wrote his work in 1758 but for the Revolutionary time frame they used the newly edited French version of Vattel.

Can you show us a single instance where any Founder or Framer quoted Vattel approvingly on the issue of citizenship?

As to the founders and framers and those of that were of that era, Chief Justice John Marshall in the 1814 Venus case specifically said that Vattel’s writings were the best when it comes to Citizenship issues. Read that case for more details on that.

This is a lie. He did not say “that Vattel’s writings were the best when it comes to Citizenship issues.” Infact, the issue being discussed had nothing to do with citizenship at all. It was regarding domicile and maritime law.

Also, while he called Vattel “more explicit and more satisfactory that other works,” he was clearly damning with faint praise. He also called it “not very full to this point.”

And finally, the translation he then went on to quote does not even include the phrase “natural born citizen.”

The journals of the Articles of Confederation mention the term “natural born Citizen” as the translation of “naturel citoyens” in correspondence with the French diplomats in the time period between 1776 and 1787.

Too bad “naturel citoyens” is not found in Vattel either.

The term was clearly defined after the Constitution was written by a 1797 edition of Vattel translated to English which conformed to the translation in the journal of the Articles of Confederation translation of naturel Citoyens before 1787.

There is no translation of “naturel Citoyens” in the Articles of Confederation. The Articles were not a translation of anything, but were originally written in English. The word “citizen” appears in them only once; in Article IV.

I challenge you to show how they use it any way that helps your argument.

Chief Justice Marshall said Vattel was the clearest writer on Citizenship. So it cannot be clearer in history what it meant and where they got it.

As already pointed out, this is a lie. Justice Marshall said no such thing.

Do you Obots support a SCOTUS definition of NBC once and for all? If you think you’re so right, then why not BUZZ OFF and let cases be adjudicated on the merits and not keep supporting bogus “standing” qualitative judgments and technicalities that obstruct?

We have nothing to do with teh inability of Birthers to leap the hurdle of standing. That is entirely your fault.

Again, the DEMOCRATS challenged McCain before the election accusing him of not being a natural born citizen because he was born in Panama, but again his father was on active duty and both his parents were US Citizens (so still a NBC). What happened after the Dems pressuring McCain was an apparent quid pro quo–they passed SR511 cosponsored by Obama deeming McCain a NBC as long as McCain shut up about Obama’s UKC father and Obama not being NBC, and now as it turns out not being a US citizen at all (Hawaii Dem Com. would have certified him if he was born in Hawaii, but they refused because he was not).

Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.

McCain was not born on US soil. His circumstance has nothing to do with Obama’s.

“…children of citizens (NB: plural, i.e. two parents) of the United States…shall be considered as natural born citizens of the United States; Provided That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons, whose fathers have never been resident in the United States…”

More dishonesty from birther genius.

Here is the entire quote: “And the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens of the United States; Provided That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons, whose fathers have never been resident in the United States…”

Yes, there have always been restrictions on children born outside the United States. Buty not on children born inside the United States.

You really should be ashamed of yourself. And another birther genius failure. (Definition of birther genius: smartest rock in a box of rocks).

Don’t know why Birthers struggle so much with the ordinary English language, and I know that these comments will be an exercise in futility, but what the hell:

“…children of citizens (NB: plural, i.e. two parents) of the United States…shall be considered as natural born citizens of the United States; Provided That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons, whose fathers have never been resident in the United States…”

1. The fact that citizens is plural does not require both parents to be citizens. If you have two unrelated children each with one citizen parents, then you have “children of citizens.” Duh.

But lets take a moment to point out the dishonest and deceptive editing that Terminu has done here. Here is the actual complete text of the law. I will highlight the words that Terminu cut out.

“And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens: Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States”

In other words… the requirement for any citizen parents was for children born overseas. There is no such requirement at all for children born on American soil anywhere in the 1790 Act.

Libertarians are not conservatives! They are liberals who don’t like to pay taxes. They’re just as much subversives to the Constitution as you are.

A natural born citizen cannot be made so by Congress, that baby is made so by “nature”.
Only nature can create natural born Citizens. Congress can create Citizens but not natural born Citizens. To be a natural born Citizen of a country with no foreign claims on that person, one has to be born in the country of two Citizens of that country. That person is naturally a citizen of that country based on the laws of nature and nature’s God, not statute. That person is always a second generation citizen. That person is born a natural born citizen, and no citizen can be made into a natural born citizen. All citizens are born with one or more ties to a foreign nation at birth but natural born citizens never are.

And Obama was not born in Hawaii, no hospital says he or his mother was ever a patient there, HI DOH refuses to verify the COLB per HRS 338-18, and anyone can get a COLB from anywhere, and there is no probative documentation.

Overall, since the Hawaii Democratic Committee refused to certify Obama due to lack of probative documentation that he was constitutionally eligible (when they had always certified former Dem candidates such as Gore and Kerry who did have documentation) he fails to meet 20th amendment requirements to be president. So he is a sitting mushroom granted powers he has no rights to, which is just criminality in action.

I suggest everyone behave as does his own administration which owes over $850,000 in back taxes, and the Department of Homeland Security employees who owe over $35,000.000.00 in back taxes. They ALL know he’s a fraud, and only expect the little people to pay to the installed dictator.

“And Obama was not born in Hawaii, no hospital says he or his mother was ever a patient there, ”

More birther dishonesty.

Hospital’s are not required to say who was born at their hospitals and since the passage of the HIPAA, it would be illegal for them to do so.

Hawaii cannot release any birth certificates as it against the law. The Nordyke twins birth cerificates are all over the internet. Why don’t you contact Hawaii DOH and have them send you a copy of their BCs. Tell Hawaii that the Nordykes have released their right ot prvacy. See how far that gets you. Only a court of law can determine if someone has given up their right to privacy.

“anyone can get a COLB from anywhere”

Desperation time. Contact three different states and have them send you your very own COLB.

“administration which owes over $850,000 in back taxes, and the Department of Homeland Security employees who owe over $35,000.000.00 in back taxes. ”

Since it is pretty clear that you have problems with reading comprehension and honesty, it’s obvious that you have once again misread some meanless newstory or just parroting delusional postings from other birthers.

Still waiting for that quote from the founders saying they used Vattel to change the definition of “natural born”. Any chance we’re going to see that from you soon? If you cann’t find anything then just go ahead and make one up, you seem to be pretty good at that.

“If Obama tries to take over with Marshal Law it could tip the country into a new Civil War. We await the October surprise, and hope someone gets a grip on things. The Supreme Court must do its duty and uphold their oath to the Constitution.”

Oh my god. Do you have any idea how insane what you said is. Or are you that delusional.

Libertarians are not conservatives! They are liberals who don’t like to pay taxes. They’re just as much subversives to the Constitution as you are.

And Obama was not born in Hawaii, no hospital says he or his mother was ever a patient there, HI DOH refuses to verify the COLB per HRS 338-18, and anyone can get a COLB from anywhere, and there is no probative documentation.

Obama never certified as eligible per the Constitution = not legal president

In 2000 and 2004, the Democratic Party of Hawaii’s official Certifications of Nomination for Al Gore and Joe Lieberman (2000) and John Kerry and John Edwards (2004) both had the following identical language:

This is to certify that the following candidates for President and Vice President of the United States are legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution and are the duly chosen candidates of both the state and the national Democratic Parties by balloting at the Presidential Preference Poll and Caucus held _____ in the State of Hawaii and by acclamation at the National Democratic Convention held ______ in _______.

In 2008, the Democratic Party of Hawaii’s official Certification of Nomination for Barack Obama and Joe Biden carried this language:

This is to certify that the following candidates for President and Vice President of the United States are legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the national Democratic Parties balloting at the Presidential Preferences Poll and Caucus held on February 19, 2008 in the State of Hawaii and by acclamation at the National Democratic Convention held August 27, 2008 in Denver, Colorado.

What the Democratic Party of Hawaii’s 2008 Certification of Nomination left out are these words:

“of the United States Constitution and are the duly chosen candidates of both the state and”

Of course, what you fail to point out is that the DNC issued a certificate of eligibility. It is the National Party that certifies national candidates and the state party that certifies state and local candidates. Also there is an evolution of certification forms going on between 2000 and 2008. The DNC originally didn’t ahve anything about constutional eligibility. The phrased added by typewriter. It was during this evolution that the change to National Candidates being certified by the DNC only.

Historian: How could he be certified when his own so-called birth state refused to both verify the forged COLB and his own so-called birth state Democratic Party refused to certify his constitutional eligibility?

What probative evidence was proffered? You can’t say they went on the “word” of the state democratic parties, since Hawaii DC didn’t offer their “word”. Even if that supposed “private” bc wasn’t shown to the public it had to have been presented just like McCain’s was – to Congress. And by Hawaii law, once the COLB was published it’s not private any longer and anyone is supposed to be able to obtain a copy, but they can’t, because it’s a forgery. Can you show me the CSPAN on the certification documentation?

Historian, no the electoral votes were counted, “ascertain tally” etc., there is no certification therein at all, go listen to the cspans and try to be quiet when you don’t know what you’re talking about next time.

gorefan: Sorry but Hawaii’s laws already uphold that once a document is published by the party of interest, they have forfeited their rights to privacy.

Say, is that all you got? That he wants to “hide” it for “privacy”? LOL!!! Then you’re admitting that it’s not the same as the COLB, just as Hawaii has said by refusing to verify the COLB, which is a total forgery. Just as Hawaii Democratic Committee has said by refusing to certify constitutional eligibility.

Wrong again, federal privacy laws ALWAYS trump state laws. It’s this little thing we call the Constitution, I know you hate it, but it is one of the best documents in the world.

As to the your other insane rants, at the end of the day all the President will ever have to do, is submit his COLB (the one that’s been on the internet for over two years) and EVERY court, state, municipality in the United States will gladly accept it. Yeah, its that little thing, we call the Constitution. Any it a beach.

The problem you have is that you don’t understand that there is no requirement for the Hawaiian Democratic Party to certify the Presidential election. Hawaii Law only requires certifications of in primaries for local and congressional races not Presidential elections (“No candidate’s name shall be printed upon any official ballot to be used at any primary, special primary, or special election unless a nomination paper was filed in the candidate’s behalf and in the name by which the candidate is commonly known.” §12-3 of Hawaiian Election Laws).

The Presidentail elections have their own section of Hawaiin laws (§14-21 of Hawaiian Election Laws) and there is no requirement for a certification

“Nomination of presidential electors and alternates; certification; notification of nominees. In each year when electors of president and vice president of the United States are to be chosen, each of the political parties or parties or groups qualified under section 11-113 shall hold a state party or group convention pursuant to the constitution, bylaws, and rules of the party or group; and nominate as candidates for its party or group as many electors, and a first and second alternate for each elector, of president and vice president of the United States as the State is then entitled. The electors and alternates shall be registered voters of the State. The names and addresses of the nominees shall be certified by the chairperson and secretary of the convention of the respective parties or groups and submitted to the chief election officer not later than 4:30 p.m. on the sixtieth day prior to the general election of the same year. The chief election officer upon receipt thereof, shall immediately notify each of the nominees for elector and alternate elector of the nomination. [L 1970, c 26, pt of §2; am L 1973, c 217, §4(b); am L 1981, c 100, §2(1); gen ch 1993]”

Only electors are certified, not candidates. Bet you didn’t know, that when you voted for Barak Obama, you were really voting for a slate of electors.

How could he be certified when his own so-called birth state refused to both verify the forged COLB and his own so-called birth state Democratic Party refused to certify his constitutional eligibility?